Article by Peter Stuart, Ben David, Ryan Eiler. Sally Reiley and Sam Winebaum
New Balance FuelCell SuperComp Trainer v3 ($180)
Introduction
Sam: The SuperComp Trainer is New Balance’s entry in the growing highly cushioned, super critical foam and plated trainer category. Designed to not only provide a massively cushioned ride but a dynamic one, the Trainer is intended for long hard runs (and daily training) and can be a racing alternative for those seeking a friendlier and more stable ride than a full on race shoes.
The additional comfort and stability does come at a penalty compared to race shoes as here we come in at about 9.55 oz / 270g compared to its identically stacked (40/34) and same PEBA foam sibling the SC Elite v4 which tips the scale at 8.15 oz / 231g (US9).
The SC Trainer v1 (RTR Review) was a giant of a shoe with a massive stack height (41mm officially at the heel with its high point 47mm) and a pronounced drop to toe off. Its big 10.45 oz / 296g US9 weight was not really an issue due to its dynamic and protective ride. It was a big favorite of RTR’s hard mileage marathoners.
The SC Trainer v2 (RTR Review) reduced stack height to 40/34 (same as V3) and had a softer, more mellow ride.
The SC Trainer v3 changes significantly yet again, despite weighing the same as the V2 and sharing the same stack height. It gets the new angular geometry of its race siblings the Pacer v2 and Elite v4, same new PEBA midsole foam and a redesigned Energy Arc system.
One thing hasn’t changed. The price remains at $180.
How does it perform for our 4 testers, all long time fans of the first 2 versions? Let’s find out!
Pros:
Deep, deep soft and reactive PEBA cushion particularly at the forefoot: Sam/Ryan/Sally
Quicker off the heel and improved heel stability stable (heel platform narrower and less carved out) Sam/Ryan/Sally/Peter/Ben
Foot containment/lockdown - Ryan/Sally/Sam/Peter
Bouncy and protective yet stable for high mileage - Ryan/Sally/Peter/Ben/Sam
Quicker reacting less mushy foam and more linear platform geometry than v2 Sam/Peter
Great fitting upper with a nifty stretchy tongue of adequate length (take a hint, SC Elite) - Sally/Peter
Solid and forgiving marathon option: Sam/Peter
Quite reasonable pricing at $180 for a state of the art, versatile, plated long trainer/racer with expected good durability: Sam/Peter/Sally
Cons:
- Wish for more flex (as v2 had) or a longer front rocker: Sam/Sally/Peter
- Shape of toebox (cramped on lateral side) - Ryan
- Soft, tall heel leads to minor outsole grinding on asphalt - Ryan
- Breathability- Ryan
- Last lace hole and collar in that area is stiff and could use more padding: Sam
- Weight is up there for a full PEBA foam shoe upper is thick, although its runs lighter than its weight: Sam/Ben
- Firmer than V2, has lost some of the bouncy magic from v1 and v2 Peter/Sally
Most comparable shoes (with your name next to each)
ASICS Magic Speed 4
adidas Adizero Boston 12
Mizuno Neo Vista
Please find the testers full run bios at the end of the article after Comparisons.
Stats
Approx.Weight: men's 9.55 oz / 271g US9
Prior Version Weight: men’s 9.52 oz / 270g US9
Stack Height:
V3 men’s 40 mm heel / 34 mm forefoot, 6mm drop
V2 men’s 40mm heel / 34 mm forefoot, 6mm drop
Platform Width:
V3::85 mm heel / 80 mm midfoot / 110 mm forefoot
V2 95 mm heel / 77 mm midfoot / 115 mm forefoot
First Impressions, Fit and Upper
Sam: The upper is an engineered mesh in a make up which New Balance calls Fantom Fit. It focuses on comfort while remaining a performance type upper.
The mesh is quite thick with an elaborate pattern of knitting to provide areas of support and areas of breathability. It is unlined. It is a beautiful upper, but I wish it was more streamlined and lighter as the Pacer v2’s is.
My test pair was a half size down from my usual US8.5 and on first try on I was concerned about both the length and toe box height. After a first run, and switching to light socks, I was just fine as the mesh got some give, and especially in the very warm humid conditions I tested them in. Hold is good overall, secure and comfortable although the rear ankle collars could use more padding.
Breathability was good.
For a 7 mile run, again in very humid warm conditions.. i forgot my socks.. Here too just fine and the fit was excellent.
I did notice some pressure at the last lace area as the lace overlay there is quite stiff and the padding behind and towards the heel quite thin.
Overall, for narrower to medium feet such as mine the fit is true to size.The Trainer v3 is also available in 2E wide sizing.
Peter: Definitely a more refined and performance oriented upper than previous versions.. Very comfortable. First mile or two I was worried that they run a hair short, but they haven’t bothered me at all, so I’d say true-to-size unless you are right on the cusp of a larger size–then I’d go up. Weight for mine is 10.59 oz/ 300g for a men’s US 11.
The styling is of a piece with the Rebel V4 and the SC Elite–lots of angles and geometric touches on the foam. Lots of triangles (reflective I’m assuming) on the heel.
First impression is that they’ve lost a little of the laugh out loud magic of previous versions, but side-by-side comparisons highlighted some real advantages of the newest version. The channel on the bottom of the shoe is a bit wider in V3 than it was in V2 and the outsole under the forefoot is now more full-ground contact which I think leads to a quicker feeling toe-off.
Ben: I agree with most of what was said above. This is a very user-friendly supertrainer. Given its fairly significant weight, I think it is much more of a daily trainer than a race-day shoe. (Whereas as some super trainers, like the SuperBlast, can function at race paces pretty easily).
I found the fit to be true-to-size and my size 9 felt good upon step-in. I’ve often had trouble with New Balance shoes in this regard so this was a pleasant surprise. I found the padded heel collar to be soft and comfortable without being overbearing. The toe box is accommodating and broad, again pointing to the notion that this is more in the mold of a daily trainer than a racer.
Ryan: The beautifully designed upper of this SC Trainer clearly means business. It’s a lay up of a more comfortable, inner fabric which is bonded to a stronger, less compliant outer engineered mesh. It works very well to provide both comfort and containment for hard, high mileage efforts. The burly “N” logos on either side of the shoe ratchets up the shoe’s heavy-duty characteristics. The drawback in constructing the upper this way is a somewhat reduced level of breathability.
Thanks to the shoe’s robust build and a gusseted tongue, slip on/off is a friendly and un-fussy process. Unlike with its leaner cousin, the Pacer, the heel has some nice padding which aids with comfort and heel securement.
I had, and continue to have, some considerable issues with the lateral side of the toe box being too cramped, and this usually isn’t an area of concern for me. The first two runs were downright unpleasant, and it wasn’t until 30 miles or so when I felt the upper breaking in to accommodate the shape of my forefoot. Even now, it’s unfortunately a bit too cramped for comfort against my big toe, but I also have to acknowledge that not many other folks seem to be having this same problem.
Toe box aside, the last and construction of this SC Trainer is high quality and worthy of a super trainer, although I felt that both the midsole and the upper took some breaking in.
Sally: The SC Trainer V1 was perhaps my favorite trainer of all time, fun and fast and wild with a pogo-stick bouncy ride that had you grinning ear to ear. Running is supposed to be fun, and that shoe certainly made it fun! There were a few drawbacks of course, such as the inner ankle rub for me at the too high top of the heel collar, but I loved it. That was perhaps my first experience with this new breed of super trainers with high stack heights and carbon plates sandwiched between sophisticated foams, and V1 will always be known as an early leader in the category.
V2 was a much tamer version of the SC Trainer with a lower heel stack and lighter weight, making it a more versatile shoe that would appeal to a greater range of runners.
So naturally the SC Trainer V3 was one of my most highly anticipated shoes of 2024, and I was thrilled to receive a pair for testing.
My first impression was admiration of another New Balance upper that is a work of artistic engineering, simply beautiful to look at. I personally like the fact that many of the New Balance shoes share similar colorways that tie the siblings and cousins together like a family, and I love the white and teal green and black colorway of my women’s pair (not as much of a fan of the black colorway I have also seen).
Like most New Balance shoes, the fit was comfortable right out of the box, well cushioned and nicely padded around the welcomed lower ankle collar, but with some concerns about the length of the toe box at my big toe.
It feels true to size at first, but I know from past experiences that my big toe can bump into the front of the shoe in some models at my true W8 size after a few miles. I was hoping this version would be different, but I must say that regardless of how thin of a sock I wear or the lacing technique I use, there is pressure on my big toes after 5 or so miles.
The width seems perfect for my narrowish woman’s foot, but perhaps my foot slides forward as I run, particularly on the downhills? I see this as a fantastic long run shoe, so I would recommend sizing up half a size if you are at all in doubt to preserve your toe nails. I had no issue with the lateral foot pressure others experienced. And I love the gusseted tongue here that has some stretch, similar to a certain ASICS shoe and yet light years away from the unpadded too short tongue on the NB SC Elite V4.
I have put over 35 miles on this shoe over the past week, but the weather here in the Boston area has been hot and humid so each run was in dripping-wet-with-sweat conditions, challenging the breathability of the upper. Let’s just say my feet were hot, and this will be a great shoe for cold weather training.
I concur with the others that this trainer requires some break-in with a firmer than expected midsole at first that softens up a bit with the miles.
Midsole & Platform
Sam: While the platform height remains the same at 40mm heel / 34mm forefoot, everything else changes under foot. The Trainer v3 now shares the angular geometry first seen in the Elite v4 and Pacer v2 with essentially 2 “rails” of midsole extending from sharper rear geometry and up as well as sidewalls to seat the foot.
The rear Energy Arc cavity is now no longer flared and the carbon plate has a central spine, I assume to add rigidity.
The foot now sits down in the midfoot side walls whereas before it did not. The forefoot which was open to the plate in v2 is now covered with an almost full coverage outsole while at midfoot the rubber is eliminated and at the heel increased in width. All of this gives the V3 a well aligned in the direction of travel feel from heel to toe and very decent stability.
The FuelCell foam is now called out as PEBA (same as in Pacer v2 and Elite v4) whereas before it was just FuelCell (likely an EVA/TPU blend).
The foam and plate and overall geometry are now far better integrated and consistent in feel on the run no matter the pace. Before the heel felt mushy and back weighted at slow paces and the forefoot while flexible soft and not as stable as now.
The cushioning is relatively soft for a PEBA foam, maybe actually softer than in the v2 and softer than ZoomX or Lightstrike Pro,yet the flow and rebound is never held up through my stride by the softness. The cushion is super deep and protective. From the heel there is a sensation of being on “rails” forward, reducing the platform width at the heel by 10mm and tightening up the central cavity are for sure what I am feeling. Despite the softness they are relatively stable.
Unlike the Trainer v2 (or lower stack Pacer v2), there is less flex up front although as one approaches the toe the profile is not completely rigid and with some runs has gotten more flexible.
The push off is really sublime here with a sensation of very deep cushion to rebound from, complimented by the broad but not too broad 110mm front platform and the presence of what we now hear is a new forked carbon plate (to be confirmed). The front action reminds me of a somewhat tamed Prime X from adidas.
I do think it could use either a few more millimeters of drop, a more accentuated or longer rocker or more flex to get a bit more roll but this is a minor wish for what is a great midsole. Basically, I would wish for a feel between the dramastic forward action of the v1 and the more pedestrian V2 and the V3 does get close to that as is.
Peter: Sam hit all the technical high notes up above, so I’ll just get in to the layman’s version: The PEBA foam here doesn’t feel soft to me. It’s not overly firm, but it’s not soft. There is some nice bounce/energy return from the forefoot–and it’s not punishing at all–but it’s not super soft. V1 was a big bouncy/soft vibe shoe (kind of the spot the mizuno neo vista occupies now), V2 was still soft but a little less extreme. V3 is firmest but also rides very smoothly. I miss the flex of the V2–as V3 is a bit stiffer up front. That said, when I put them on side-by-side I was a little shocked at how much more efficient V3 felt. V3 takes a few miles to wear in, but the foam also feels much better at speed than V2'a did.
Ben: I also found the foam to be far more supportive and stabilizing than the rather mushy foam in the previous version. It almost can feel firm, as Peter notes, but I believe that it softened up for me after 2-3 runs. The firmness of the foam also suggests greater durability, which is always welcomed.
Ryan: I largely agree with what my friends have written above. Version 3 has become firmer and more stable by a noticeable degree, although it’s still certainly on the softer, bouncier end of the spectrum. The heel still plunges down and rebounds with plenty of spunk, but I think it feels less sloppy than did V2. NB seems to really be loving and embracing this split-heel design around the exposed Energy Arc plate.
I especially agree with Sam’s comment that this version feels much less back weighted, and balances impact forces more nicely toward the center of the foot than did the previous versions. On the downside, while it makes for a fun, crowd-pleaser of a ride, sometimes I get the feeling that splitting the heel in two invites a slightly wobbly feeling whose lack of structure allows the outsole to occasionally splay/grind against the asphalt.
Performance in the forefoot during toe off is quite impressive. The shoe delivers a copious, responsive platform off of which to push, with more stiffness than its predecessors. The only (very minor) concern here is that it may be too stiff for people who think this is just a standard trainer, as its name suggests. For a high-performance training shoe, V3’s forefoot propulsion is close to ideal in my opinion.
All in all, I think this iteration can be summed up as a more ‘serious’ take on V2. It’s still true to the NB way of avoiding harshness and delivering an enjoyable experience, but V3 doesn’t feel quite as giddy and playful as did the previous model.
Sally: No need to repeat all that the other testers have said, as I am in agreement that V3 is immediately firmer in feel than its predecessors. That firmness softened up for me after a few runs, but this PEBA midsole is less soft and less bouncy, but responsive in a smooth way.
I also don’t feel as much of a rocker as I did in the other versions, landing more in the midfoot but with a smooth transition forward to that firmer toe-off. I also agree that even though it is narrower in base, it is more stable riding.
And yes, more versatile and yet sadly not as “giddy and playful” (well said, Ryan) as the predecessors, especially that wild and fun V1.
Outsole
Sam: Plenty of outsole coverage, and more upfront than in v2. I noted in particular great grip during a rail trail crushed granite run and on fine beach sand over pavement.
The underfoot differences between v2 and v3 are plainly visible.
The underfoot cavity to the Energy Arc is less flared and upfront the previously exposed plate is now fully covered. The front stability as a result is more consistent across the whole width, the stability improved and the push off from the front rubber more dynamic.
Peter: Traction is good and the full ground coverage is an improvement. The Energy Arc channel is a bit wider so it might catch fewer (or just bigger) rocks. V3 feels more stable for sure and I agree with Sam that the push off is quicker.
Ryan: Fantastic grip, and I appreciate the filling-in of the channel that ran too far up into the forefoot in V2. Now, we have a very confidence-inspiring feeling at toe off which complements the more stable forefoot foam above the thick rubber.
However, I’m still not a huge fan of two small patches of rubber in a soft, split heel design, as sometimes they seem to be working independently of one another.
x
Sally: I had one run in the rain and can vouch for this outsole’s great traction on wet pavement. I also appreciate that NB widened the groove so one no longer catches every marble-sized stone underfoot. The outsole is delightfully quiet and the additional ground coverage is welcomed, and durability promising.
Ride, Conclusions and Recommendations
Peter: As much as I love all of the iterations of the SC Trainer, I think that over time the V3 will probably become my favorite. It’s the most versatile version of the SC Trainer for sure. V1 felt like a recovery shoe only for me and V2 was great for long, slow miles but I didn’t love trying to go quick in it. V3 got me through some fartleks, a recovery run and a long run in the space of my first 3 days with it and all of the runs were excellent.
At first I was disappointed by the lack of moon shoe super bounce vibe, but as the miles went on I really started to appreciate the sophisticated ride. What really spun my head around was putting a V2 on one foot and V3 on the other for a couple of miles. V2 just wanted to land on the soft forefoot and hang out there, while V3 wanted to giddy up and keep going. Similarly protective feeling on the landing, but V3 just transitions so much better.
The SC Trainer model started out, for me, as a recovery or long, slow run shoe. Now that we’re at V3 I can confidently call it a versatile everyday trainer that can rock tempo runs and would be a delight to run a marathon in. An excellent shoe, worth checking out for sure. Highly recommend it.
Peter: Score 9.5 / 10
Nothing wrong with it. Not laugh out loud fun, but fun and versatile.
😊😊😊
Sam: The latest evolution of New Balance’s super trainer changes geometry, foam, and plate while staying the same as V2 in stack height, weight, and $180 price. New Balance has focused on relatively soft rides across all its trainers and racers with mixed results for me. Specifically the Trainer v2 was somewhat unbalanced between its soft foam, big Energy Arc cavity, stiff plate and relatively loose upper.
The Trainer v3 “tightens” things up with a more stable and directed ride, livelier quicker reacting while still on the soft side PEBA foam, a plate design with some front flex and more dialed in upper.
I do think the bouncy stable forefoot (much improved over the somewhat mushy v2’s) could use a bit more rocker length and/or flex especially given the 6mm drop and training purposes here.
The Trainer v3 has a very pleasant and effective ride ideally suited to long runs and daily training if you seek a max cushion softer feel. It’s one of those shoes I want to keep reaching for despite other pressing testers in the queue for its very leg friendly and fun ride.
Despite its somewhat elevated weight compared to similar stack height full on race shoes, including New Balance’s own Elite v4 at the same stack height, the Trainer v3 can also be an excellent marathon race shoe you seek a steady, consistent ride that adapts well to faster or slower paces while remaining relatively stable.
Sam’s Score: 9.4 / 10
Deductions for weight and wish for a somewhat more rolling toe off.
😊😊😊😊
Ben: I found the third version of the New Balance SC Trainer to be fun, accommodating and easy to run in. As a daily trainer, it offers a smooth ride with greater stability and propulsion than previous iterations. While the weight is a detraction, the ride makes up for it and almost has you forget about the shoe’s bulk. If you are looking for a shoe that is going to occupy a spot in your daily trainer rotation, with the option to sometimes use for a workout, this would work well. It’s not a race day shoe, as noted above, nor is it a shoe for sloggy recovery runs.. This will compete well with all of the Supertrainers on the market and likely become a favorite trainer for many.
Ben’s score: 9.5/10
deductions only for weight and not being very versatile
😊😊😊😊
Ryan: Across their entire line, New Balance has clearly been catering to the type of runner favoring a relatively mellow, bouncy ride with relatively little bite. The SC Trainer fits in appropriately here, both visually and performance-wise, among the family which includes the SC Elite and SC Pacer.
Its ride has become more responsive and stable, but this still is an SC Trainer, so it’s still plenty soft and deep. The forefoot now feels quite wide and makes for a powerful feeling at toe off. The less continuous outsole, somewhat modified midsole geometry, and stiffer chassis produce less of a ‘rockered’ ride and more of one which favors a flatter midfoot compression and forceful toe off. While there’s a hint of flex at the toe, this ride felt surprisingly stiff for a shoe labeled as a ‘trainer’, and I probably wouldn’t use it for easy, recovery runs as a result. I agree with Ben on this note, and will say that it’s too heavy for racing, and too intense for a mellow jaunt.
If you have a wide forefoot, beware the tight toe box here. Otherwise, the SC Trainer is a fine choice for those looking for something which can handle long, moderate/serious training runs with a ton of protection and softness underfoot.
Ryan’s score: 8.7/10 -
Deductions primarily for toe box design; also for weight, breathability, and heel dynamics
😊😊😊
Sally: I have admittedly been a bit confused by this latest version of what was originally one of my all time favorite daily trainers that was tops in the FUN department, but it has grown on me over the miles.
Firmer and more stable than its bouncy predecessors, it rolls smoothly through the miles with plenty of forgiveness to your legs. I miss the more pronounced rocker of V2, but appreciate the firmer and less mushy ride and more pronounced toe off. The upper is a thing of beauty and the try on feel is extremely comfortable, but the sizing runs a bit short (or shallow?) for me in the big toe, though others seem to think it runs true to size.
As I ramp up training for fall marathons (NYC Marathon, again), this will be a popular shoe in my rotation for longish yet faster tempo runs. I don’t see it as soft enough for recovery runs, nor light and fast enough for racing, but perfect for those many in between daily workout runs. I would prefer to size up half a size for toe space.
New Balance has another great shoe here, more versatile and tame than V1 in particular. I miss the wild smile-inducing fun ride of the V1 pogo stick, but this ride is more practical and universally appealing. You will enjoy it.
Sally’s score: 9.5 / 10.0 (points off for stiffer ride, less flex, fit issues with length at toes)
Smile score: 😊😊😊😊
9 Comparisons
Index to all RTR reviews: HERE
Trainer v3 Stats:
Approx.Weight: men's 9.55 oz / 271g US9
Stack Height: men’s 40 mm heel / 34 mm forefoot, 6mm drop
Platform Width: 85 mm heel / 80 mm midfoot / 110 mm forefoot
SC Trainer v1 (RTR Review)
Sam: The V1 was higher stack, weighed more, had a greater drop and a more dynamic ride than the v3. The V3 is more versatile with a more pleasant ride.
Ben: I’m with Sam. V3 is much more stable and reliable. I found V1 to be too radical and often unstable.
SC Trainer v2 (RTR Review)
Sam: Covered in the review. In summary the v3 is more stable, better balanced, has a superior quicker reacting soft but less mushy foam, and an improved geometry and Energy Arc that pulls all the elements together for a smoother, more versatile ride.
Ben: I found V2 to be highly disappointing with poor lockdown and a highly unstable ride. The heel would collapse and it became hard to run in. V3 is a major upgrade in this regard, and various others - overall fit, durability, propulsiveness…
Ryan: Stability is certainly improved here over V2. This version 3 is more serious and stout on several fronts. There’s more forefoot outsole, and less of a forefoot channel underfoot, which makes toe off impressively well behaved and powerful. The upper still isn’t super breathable, but it is likely to last hundreds of miles and performs well, despite what I would call a misshapen toe box.
New Balance SC Elite v4 (RTR Review)
Ryan: There are many similarities here, and in many ways the Trainer is simply a twist on the Elite v4, with some of the performance differences you’d expect. The Elite is certainly snappier, quicker to turn over, more lively underfoot, and more breathable. The flip side to this is that it doesn’t offer the Trainer’s surprisingly stable platform — especially in the forefoot. Another major difference is in the robustness of the upper. While the Trainer dons thick, strong overlays and a multi-layered mesh, the Elite takes a much more weight conscious approach. I prefer the upper of the Elite, primarily because the toe box of the Trainer felt cramped on the medial side. That said, I wish the heel of the Elite was better built, as it seemed to lack a bit of lockdown for a racing shoe.
There isn’t a massive difference in the perceived longitudinal stiffness of these two, with the abundance of soft foam masking plate harshness, although the Trainer does have a touch more flex in the toe. As for the outsoles, they share a similar surface area and layout, with the Elite having three rubber patches up front instead of one. Grip has been great with both.
Clearly of the same heritage, these two shoes will appeal to runners who appreciate a relatively soft and bouncy ride, with a heel that heavily compresses thanks to the split-heel design. Choose the Trainer for its durability and robust build quality, or the Elite if you want a similar ride but value speed over stability and longevity. It’s worth comparing the price differential of these before you buy, as it may be close enough to warrant picking the Elite.
Derek: I wear US9.5 in both shoes. The stack numbers are very similar between the two. SCE4 is softer, with a thinner upper and has a narrower platform to run on, but the rocker shape seems to be exactly the same. I think the SC Trainer is a good trainer version of the SCE4 and people who like the SCE4 as their main racer will appreciate that the rocker shape and position are the same in the SC Trainer. That said, the difference in firmness of the shoes is quite apparent, and so there is no mistaking that the Trainer is just that.
New Balance SC Pacer v2 (RTR Review)
Sam: Lower stack height at 32.8 mm heel / 24.8 mm forefoot with an 8mm drop with underfoot the same PEBA midsole and outsole. The Pacer v2 is considerably lighter, more flexible and agile. It relies more on a roll to toe off than the Trainer v3 which has a more rocker and bounce off the forefoot approach. While less cushioned than the Trainer there is still plenty for uptempo runs of all distances and even daily training for me. Its simpler upper is lighter and smoother fitting. Choosing with a focus on overall versatility including racing any distance, Pacer v2. For long runs or a more max cushion training experience. Trainer v3.
Ben: They’re very different shoes. The Pacer is lighter, peppier and great for workouts and shorter racing. The Trainer is built to go long and withstand a heavier workload: long runs, long repeats, long easy miles. I think I’d be nice to have both in your stable but if you had to choose one, I’d say the Pacer probably does better in its role than the Trainer does in its role.
Ryan: While very similar and ‘on brand’ in appearance, the Pacer is a much better choice for racing and workouts where turnover is paramount. These shoes have very distinct use cases: the Trainer is for moderate/intense long runs, while the Pacer caters to shorter, even faster efforts. It’ll come as no surprise that the overall build and weight lend the SC Trainer toward having better foot containment and stability, but the Pacer is by far and away the shoe with better turnover. Given that the Pacer still has a considerable depth of cushion, and that both shoes are fairly stiff, it may be a better choice unless it’s a durable, high-mileage shoe you seek. That said, the minimalist build of the Pacer’s heel was a detriment in my eyes, and gave me achilles blisters during the first couple runs. Choose the Pacer for its speed, and the Trainer for its ability to be a long-haul workhorse.
ASICS Magic Speed 4 (RTR Review)
Sam: The carbon plated Magic Speed towers over the SC Trainer with a giant 43.5 mm heel / 35.5mm forefoot stack height sitting on a slightly narrower platform width of 80 mm heel / 70 mm midfoot / 105 mm forefoot which helps it come in about 1.2 oz less than the Trainer. Its dual foam midsole made of FF Turbo supercritical underfoot with FF Blast Plus below is a bit firmer and quicker responding but lacks some of the pleasant forefoot bounce of the Trainer. Similar fits and uppers with the ASICS a bit smoother in fit for me if a bit snugger overall.
Ryan: I like the fit of the ASICS more, and agree that it fits a bit snugger – it is intended for snapper efforts, after all. The Magic Speed is more responsive underfoot, lending itself to tempo-paced running, whereas the SC Trainer loves to show off its deep, energetic midsole. The NB doesn’t feel as towering underfoot as does the huge stack of the ASICS, and has a more confidence inspiring toe off. I’d pick the ASICS for running where quicker turnover and low inertia is important, and the NB for any other long, purposeful training runs.
adidas Adizero Boston 12 (RTR Review)
Lighter at a 8.7 oz / 247g (US9) with a lower 37.5mm heel / 30.5mm forefoot stack height the Boston has a dual foam midsole unlike the Trainer v3. Underfoot top notch Lightstrike Pro with below more conventional Lightstrike 2.0 foam. Sandwiched between the foams we have a relatively flexible Energy Rods array. The Boston upper is thinner and less “luxe” in feel, likely contributing to its lighter weight along with its narrower and more agile rear and midfoot platform than the Trainer v3. The Boston is a more “serious” riding shoe, somewhat firmer and more responsive and thus leans faster paces than the Trainer. The Trainer is somewhat more mellow and softer riding with a more consistent feel underfoot regardless of pace.
Mizuno Neo Vista (RTR Review)
Approx. Weight: men's 9.2 oz / 261g US9
Stack Height: men’s 44.5mm heel / 36.5mm forefoot ( 8mm drop spec)
Platform Width: 95 mm heel / 80 mm midfoot / 120 mm forefoot
Peter:The Neo Vista harkens back to SC Trainer V1 and produces some of the “what the hell is this thing” that I got when I put on the OG VaporFly. It’s a wildly bouncy, fun and moderately unstable joyride. I really like it, but there’s very little in the ground-feel. The SC Trainer V3 is a much more refined and, in some ways, traditional trainer. More versatile than the Neo Vista though not quite as fun. If I had to choose one to go out and run long in right now it would be the SC V3.
Sam: I mostly agree with Peter adding that the Neo Vista has an easier flow at slower paces and its knit upper leans more comfort with stretch in the mix than the performance oriented Trainer’s.
Ryan: These two have completely different genetics, despite both technically being ‘trainers’. The Mizuno takes a much more casual approach, with its far stretchier knit upper, a less stable (but arguably more fun) midsole, a more rockered ride, and a less tenacious outsole. I wear the Neo Vista when I want to go for a casual jaunt and want a ton of bouncy, comfortable protection underfoot, but I’d pick the SC Trainer if I had any intention of picking up the pace and needing some stiffness underfoot.
Saucony Kinvara Pro (RTR Review)
Sam: At the same $180 pricing, the Pro weighs 10 oz / 283 g (US9) at a higher 8mm drop, has a 2mm higher heel and the same 34mm forefoot height. It weighs about 0.5 oz /14g more,which is easonable for sure. Its combination of PWRRUN Pb underfoot , carbon plate and rubberized PWRRUN below as the lower midsole and outsole is a duller in ride and slower to respond although overall it is more cushioned in feel and has more flexibility. The Trainer v3 is a quicker shoe, the Pro more suitable for easier paces. The uppers are similar in materials and fit. True to size
Hoka Skyward X (RTR Review)
Sam: In the same carbon plated super trainer as the V3 but.. Considerably higher stacked at 48/43, broader on the ground, more stable and 1.2 oz heavier the Skyward has a bouncier softer ride with its plate and overall geometry going quite far to make up for its weight 10.7 oz / 303 g men's US9. The Hoka is all about the most stable big shoe from solid thick upper to platform. The ride is super pleasant and energetic with the softness and bounce well managed and the roll of such a big shoe effective. Its a great choice for the heavier runner and for any runner seeking a heavy duty recovery easy run shoe with some carbon and super foam excitement. At $225 it is not as good a value or as versatile as the Trainer.
Peter: The Hoka Skyward X was a dud for me. Too big, too heavy, not that fun. SC Trainer better on all counts.
New Balance Fresh Foam Balos (RTR Review)
Peter: The SC Trainer is really what I wanted the Balos to be. The Balos feels like it gets stuck on the transition, kind of hangs around on the forefoot. It’s softer feeling, but the SC Traner V3 is more fun to run in and far more versatile.
Tester Profiles
Peter lives in California and has been a sub 3 hour marathoner as well as a 1:21 half marathoner in recent years.
Sam is the Editor and Founder of Road Trail Run. He is in his 60’s with 2024 Sam’s 52th year of running roads and trails. He has a decades old 2:28 marathon PR. These days he runs halves in the just sub 1:40 range if he gets very, very lucky. Sam trains 30-40 miles per week mostly at moderate paces on the roads and trails of New Hampshire and Utah be it on the run, hiking or on nordic skis. He is 5’9” tall and weighs about 164 lbs, if he is not enjoying too many fine New England IPA’s.
Ben is the Senior Rabbi of Reform Congregation Keneseth Israel of Elkins Park, PA. A cancer survivor, he has run 21 marathons. He holds PRs of 3:15 for the marathon and 1:30 for the half. At 46, he still enjoys pushing himself and combining his running with supporting a variety of causes. Follow him on Instagram: @RabbiBPD or Twitter: @BDinPA
Ryan Eller A hopeless soccer career led Ryan to take up running, and after taking a decade-long break from competing, he is back racking up mileage whenever he can. He calls the 2018 Boston Marathon the hardest race of his life, where he finished in 2:40, barely remembering his name at the finish line. Rya more recently has a PR of 2:14:23 from the 2024 Boston Marathon finishing 3d American and 15th overall, a 2:17:16 Olympic Marathon Trials qualifier, from the 2023 Philadelphia Marathon after two other 2:18 efforts in the last year.
Sally is a lifelong runner and mother of five who agreed against her better judgment to run her first marathon at age 54; she has since run the past ten Boston Marathons, two NYC Marathons, one Chicago, and one London with the WMM Six Star Medal now in her sights. With a Boston PR of 3:25:55 in 2022 (9th place in AG) and two consecutive 2nd place in Age Group W60 awards in NYC, she competed in the Abbott World Marathon Majors Age Group World Championships at the 2022 London Marathon and ran an all-time PR of 3:24:02, placing 6th in the world in her women’s 60-64 age group. She also competes in USATF races with the Greater Lowell Road Runners team. To add meaning to her Boston Marathon races she runs with Team Eye and Ear and has raised over $275,000 for Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital. Sally is 5’2’’ and 105 pounds and lives in Marblehead, MA, training outdoors year round. She blames her love of skiing out West for any and all Boston Marathon training challenges.
7 comments:
How does this compare to Rebel 4?
The problem with this shoe in EU is that it is ridiculously overpriced: 260€. In comparison, the list prices of some of the shoes mentioned in this review: Boston 12 170€, Neo Vista 180€, Magic Speed 4 180€, Skyward X 235€.
Given that something like Metaspeed Sky Paris is priced at 250€ makes it hard to understand what NB is doing with their prices here in EU. It is not just the Trainer v3, Elite v4 is also priced at 290€ here which is more than all the other super racing shoes except Alphafly 3 and Evo 1.
Any thoughts on comparison to the On Cloudeclipse?
The comparison vs the Elite v4 isn't showing. Would be interesting to see given the relatively small difference in price. As Mikael says, pricing for this shoe (and the Elite) is ridiculous in the UK and EU.
FYI, the midsole is not full PEBA / the same as the Elite and Pacer (I have all 3 shoes so can personally confirm that side by side the foams are clearly different). It is the same foam as in the Rebel (which I also have), so 80/20 EVA/PEBA blend.
Agreed!!! Please compare to Rebel V4
There is a comparison to the Elite v4? I would be SUPER interested in seeing this. I am having a hard time understanding what advantage this has over the elite v4 aside from price,
Post a Comment